The philosophy of freedom is a very old parat of philosophy. It has been discussed, commented on, dissected and split into many ways, going as high as being represented in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Freedom is an interesting thing, considered to be above everything else but vague enough to be interpreted in so many ways. Some say that every living thing gifted with self-consciousness and intellect is free as it can choose its own actions. Some say that we are inherently not free while we life in a society, something that by definition limits the choices of our actions.

Is freedom just the sum of the choices we can make at any given time? Is freedom a synonym to ‘free-will’ ? Is freedom inherently linked to independence .. or is it the other way around?

How often have you heard the phrasing: “I don’t have a choice” from someone else? Is that true, are there situations when one is corced by elements out of one’s control to act in a certain way?  The definition of the human being says: no, such situations cannot be. A human has been shown to be able to circumvent even the basic drives of the animal within. The animal instinct dictates a few basic needs which nature compells us to follow: feeding, survival and breeding. These are imprinted in the genetic makeup of life, at least on Earth and is part (more or less) of what drives us in life. Some say that no human can rise above these, though I believe that, in fact, many people do.

Survival is defeated by the act of either self-sacrifice or suicide. Feeding is defeated by acts of hunger-strike, some even extreme as leading to death. Breeding is defetead by abstinence, or the use of condoms, or in many other ways.

Of course, there is a fine line here as one choice or another may prove to be against what some may see as one’s best interest at any given time. Giving up one’s life, for example, is generally seen as not in one’s best interest, especially since death is seen as an absolute end and, as such, appears to be the end of all possible choice. A dead person is believe to be unable to make any further choices so, in this regard, we can say that a dead person is not free. Free-will becomes irrelevant since, even if the being persists, it has no further effect and choice dissapears as the dead cannot (apparently at least) choose to come back to life.

Other less drastic situations, can contain similarities. Defying one’s parents when they dictate a chore for example, may be seen as not in one’s best interest and then one could say “I have no choice but to do this, I am not free”. Reality however disagrees since the choice to dissent remains there, just that one may not consider to be in his or her best interest to act that way. Therefore, one chooses to obey, while maintaining that “I’m not free”. But in fact this act is a conscious choice: “I choose to obey because it is in my best interest to obey”.

Leaving philosophy aside however, common view sees this as a case of “lack of freedom”. One cannot do of their of volition and have the certitude of a favorable outcome in the long-term. But here lies the issue. Any choice has consequences. Even if, using the above example, the parents would give the child the desired freedom (by that I don’t mean “get out of the house, live your life as you please” kind of independence) to follow their desired course of action, then the child might choose to play, be with his friends. However, the chore not being done, may result in a worse effect: for example if the chore consisted in buying food from the shop, then later the child would feel the effect of his choice to not go buy food (sure, not a realistic example, but it follows the course of cause and effect).

The problem here is information. Any choice we make is based on the information that we posses at any given time. If the above child would have known about the severe necessity of food, maybe he would have done the chore of his own will, maybe he would’ve said “I’ll go now to buy food instead of playing because I will get hungry” .

This is why many see life as a game of chess, your view of “best interest” and “what you want to do” relies on what you know at any given point and on how well that information allows you to see ahead in the future, as well as your innate capacity to do so.

This is why “freedom for the sake of freedom” is a rather bad concept, because it is vry well possible that the people who dictate your course of action or on whom your course of action depends on, may know more than you. They may have the capacity to see better in the future and find the choice which, taken now, will later lead to the best possible outcome given the circumstances of today.

In my opinion, we are slaves to information. If what you know is clear and correct, then you have a good chance of finding the right answer. That is, if you can see and process that which you know, of course. Since people are different (as it should be), not everyone has the capacity or the possibility or simply the access to the required information, even if everyone would like to think they have it.

Very often, it is good to let some things in the hands of others. Of course, for this it would be great if people would have the tendency to come together and emphasize what they have in common instead of what makes them different. The future is quite a big place and it would be nice if humanity would step forward as one, instead of a divided planet. To this end, it would be nice if everyone would spend more time getting to know themselves, their own capacities but also limitations, so that everyone would find the perfect spot for what they want and what they are good for. Everyone has limits and despite what society says or dictates that you should aspire, every place must be filled, every role must be fulfilled.

This is particularly important in a society that teaches us that everyone should try to be a leader, independent, uncoerced … free. But in many occasions history has shown us that this can lead to disaster.

First of all, if everyone would try to be a leader … then whom will be left to be lead. What will everyone be a leader of? The result would be something descending from